General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne of the largest banks issued an alarming warning that Earth is running out of the resources to su
One of the largest banks issued an alarming warning that Earth is running out of the resources to sustain life
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/hsbc-warns-earth-is-running-out-of-resources-for-life-2018-8
One of the world's largest banks says the planet is running out of resources and warns that neither governments nor companies are prepared for climate change.
The world spent its entire natural resource budget for the year by August 1, a group of analysts at HSBC said in a note that cited research from the Global Footprint Network (GFN).
That means that the world's citizens used up all the planet's resources for the year in just seven months, according to GFN's analysis.
"In our opinion, these findings and events show that many businesses and governments are not adequately prepared for climate impacts, nor are they using natural resources efficiently," the HSBC analysts said in the note.
Many banks and asset managers have started factoring climate risks into their decision-making - a move spurred in part by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But it's far less common to see multinational banks sound the alarm about climate change so explicitly in their equity research.
..more...
Chickensoup
(650 posts)CrispyQ
(36,492 posts)Such a hateful cruel man. A reflection of a significant segment of our fellow citizens.
progree
(10,911 posts)Ultimate source: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060092895
... The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen more than 35 percent since before the Industrial Revolution, when it was estimated to be 280 ppm, according to Scripps. When scientists first started recording CO2 about 60 years ago, it was 320 ppm. This year, that number hit 410.31, a record high in modern history and a sharp increase since 2013, when CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time, according to Scripps.
... The number used by the Trump administration assumes that fossil fuel consumption will continue to rise every year, said Ralph Keeling, head of the CO2 program at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. It does not account for competition from renewable energy, emissions reduction policies or the assumption that the market can support that rate of growth, he said. It also doesn't account for a significant global effort to curb emissions, such as the Paris climate agreement.
My math says an increase from 280 to 410.31 is 46.5%, not 35%. We're like just 3 or so years away from 420 ppm, which is the 50% increase point. (Remember 350.org? )
This is insane - at 790 ppm, we'd be back to CO2 levels and hothouse climates of like 45 million years ago.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)but politics and greed push it to the back pages. Trump, dangerous, climate change? An extreme danger.
haele
(12,667 posts)Parts of the world where people have been living for hundreds of years are unfarmable now; those people have to go somewhere.
And the West is just sitting around pretending it's only temporary, those people can always go back.
But even if you get rid of the religious/political issues in those regions - there's nothing for them to go back to, other than over-crowded cities and failing farmland.
Which probably is the root cause for all the current religious/political craziness they're fleeing in their countries.
When your home and "deeply held" traditions can no longer sustain you and your family, you become desperate. Millions of people are now desperate, because they can't cope with the change.
We've been ignoring this at our peril for over 60 years of arrogant pre-colonialism. Scientists and Sociologists have been warning about this for decades...
Yay corporate culture! Late to reality as usual.
Haele
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
Yep. While we're all sitting here, chanting USA! USA! We're #1! We're #1!, China acts as a collective nation state and secures crop leases for 40-50 years into the future. Soon, America is going to be Fuuuuucked for Food!
.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)We either do it peacefully, or it will be through conflict. Which do we prefer?
We obviously prefer armed conflict, and lots of it.
erronis
(15,324 posts)They think their wealth and guarded communities will save them until the rest of the world kills each other or dies of starvation/drowning.
There is no way to play out the apocalyptic end scenes without everyone, even the "blessed ones", suffering. The planet as a whole will suffer also but other species will rebound better than us and new ones will evolve to deal with the mess we've left.
The Liberal Lion
(1,414 posts)but rather a matter of some using far more than what is necessary. Conspicuous consumption is the issue not population size. Where does conspicuous consumption originate? Capitalism. Capitalism is the problem.
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)I wonder if impoverished villagers in, say Ethiopia, hear these news stories and think "omg we've got to reduce the population!"
NickB79
(19,257 posts)That assumes no meat or dairy consumption at all, with all existing cropland used for grains and vegetables.
However, we are currently losing topsoil at an unsustainable rate from conventional farming, meaning we can't expect to keep farming all this land into the next century.
We also have to abandon the idea of significant biomass energy if all farmland is used for human consumption.
We will also lose massive amounts of farmland as oceans flood coastal regions and droughts turn cropland to dust.
If we try to expand farming to remaining wildlands, we speed up climate change.
We're also wiping out ocean life at a fast clip, meaning a major protein source is in danger as fisheries collapse and reefs die.
We're well over 7 billion people now; we're likely way past a sustainable population at this point.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)So unless you're proposing a mandatory maximum age ala Logan's Run what more do you expect us to do to reduce the population besides killing ourselves?
progree
(10,911 posts)according to http://www.populationconnection.org. And in most countries there is not legal, safe abortion. Even in the U.S., about half of pregnancies are unplanned, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The world fertility rate may be half of what it is in the 1960's, but even so, the population is increasing by 1 billion every 12 or so years, has been for about the last 3 billion increase in population, and is projected to continue at about that rate for the next few decades before slowing down.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)There are a lot of Russian oligarchs (Manafart being one) plus a lot of scum sucking GOPeers. I could make you a list.
bucolic_frolic
(43,252 posts)Return of the Middle Ages
My advice? Stockpile good books.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,109 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)why would anyone bother working at a bank instead of gathering family to help each other through their last years?
Hundreds of millions of vulnerable people will die, are dying, even in hopeful projections, however.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,869 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)DemoTex
(25,400 posts)But leave me the keys to your Porsche.
keithbvadu2
(36,869 posts)Rapture - give me your useless money
htuttle
(23,738 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,623 posts)This past week that he has been proactive and has funds for fighting the fires for now, but not all government officials are as realistic and prudent as they are NY and CA. The whole planet is on the fast track to destruction...gee, what a surprise.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)cutroot
(876 posts)They kill off a few million brown or yellow or black people
struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)nitpicker
(7,153 posts)And DW reported on this as well.
However, I guess Business insider comes to the attention of some other people.